Andhra Pradesh HC Upholds Quashing of Pension Cut Against Sub-Registrar Who Relied on Superior's Certificates

A Division Bench at Amaravati dismissed cross-appeals, affirming that a Sub-Registrar cannot be penalised for registering documents on the faith of verification certificates issued by his superior, when no connivance was alleged or proved.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, in a judgment delivered on 19 June 2026, dismissed both a State appeal and an employee appeal arising from a disciplinary order passed two years after the employee had already retired. Chief Justice Lisa Gill, leading the Division Bench along with Justice Ninala Jayasurya, upheld the Single Bench's earlier decision to quash a punishment of 20% permanent cut in pension and recovery of Rs 4,15,286/-, while also affirming the dismissal of the employee's bid for notional promotion. The case turned on whether a Sub-Registrar could be held personally liable for registering documents based on verification certificates issued by a superior officer, when the enquiry report itself placed responsibility squarely on that superior.

The Dispute Before the Division Bench

Tirlaka Koteswara Rao joined the Andhra Pradesh Registration Department as a Probationary Sub-Registrar and served until his retirement in 2013, reaching the rank of District Registrar. The disciplinary proceedings against him traced back to his posting as Sub-Registrar at Nallapadu, Guntur District, between 27 May 1995 and 22 March 1996.

The charge, framed by memo dated 1 June 1998, alleged that he registered 23 documents without verifying the date of purchase of stamps sold by stamp vendors in Guntur. The State's case was that those stamps had been sold with ante-dates, enabling parties to register documents at pre-revised stamp duty rates and evade payment on the revised market values that came into force from 1 April and 1 May 1995. The alleged loss to the State exchequer was quantified at Rs 4,15,286/-.

When his explanation of 9 September 1998 was found unsatisfactory, a formal enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Report came only on 13 March 2012, holding the charges proved. The Government provisionally proposed a 100% cut in pension permanently, along with the recovery amount. After a show-cause notice and consideration of the response, the final order dated 19 November 2015 — passed two years after Koteswara Rao's retirement — imposed a 20% permanent cut in pension and directed recovery of Rs 4,15,286/-.

Two Original Applications were filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which on transfer to the High Court became W.P.(AT) No. 2120 of 2021 (challenging the punishment) and W.P.(AT) No. 594 of 2022 (seeking notional promotion to District Registrar and Deputy Inspector General on par with his immediate junior, K. Satyanarayana Rao). A Single Bench allowed the first petition and dismissed the second by a common order dated 10 July 2025. Both sides appealed.

The Employee's Defences and the Enquiry Report's Own Findings

Koteswara Rao contested the punishment on several grounds. He argued that Sub-Registrars were not required to physically verify Stamp Vendors' Registers, since those registers had been centralised in the custody of District Registrars from 31 March 1995 onwards. It was, he submitted, a practical impossibility for a Sub-Registrar to travel to the District Registrar's office each time to physically examine the register before every registration. Instead, he had kept documents pending and sought verification certificates — a procedure he contended was consistent with the instructions contained in the Inspector General of Registration's memo dated 26 July 1993.

The verification certificates were issued by one B. Yanadaiah, who was then the Joint Sub-Registrar Inspector (Joint S.R.I.), Guntur. Koteswara Rao registered the 23 documents only after receiving those certificates. The enquiry report dated 13 March 2012 itself recorded that the issuance of verification certificates was found to be incorrect, and that “responsibility falls on Sri B. Yanadaiah, who issued the said certificates.” The report further noted that Koteswara Rao had kept the documents pending and sought verification before proceeding with registration.

Despite this finding in the enquiry report, no action of any kind was taken against B. Yanadaiah for issuing false verification certificates or for tampering with entries in the Stamp Vendors' Register. Four other Sub-Registrars were also not proceeded against. Koteswara Rao additionally pressed the extraordinary delay in the proceedings: incidents from 1995, charges framed in 1998, enquiry completed only in 2012, and final order passed in 2015 — all of which he argued violated G.O.Ms.No. 679 dated 1 November 2008, which prescribes a timeline of three to six months for completion of disciplinary enquiries.

How the Division Bench Reasoned on the Punishment

The Division Bench examined the charge and the enquiry report together. The core question was whether Koteswara Rao had any obligation to physically verify Stamp Vendors' Registers himself, rather than rely on certificates issued by B. Yanadaiah.

The Bench agreed with the Single Bench that there was nothing on record to indicate that a Sub-Registrar was under such an obligation, or that registration on the basis of verification certificates from B. Yanadaiah was impermissible. Equally significant, the Bench noted, was the complete absence of any allegation of connivance between Koteswara Rao and B. Yanadaiah.

What the Division Bench found particularly striking was the treatment of B. Yanadaiah. The enquiry report itself named him as the person responsible for the false certificates. Yet no action was taken against him for incidents that occurred in 1995. The charge against Koteswara Rao was framed in 1998, the enquiry ran until 2012, and the final penalty arrived in 2015 — two years after his retirement. The Bench treated the delay as a further factor supporting the Single Bench's conclusion.

The State's argument — that Sub-Registrars were specifically required under the revised stamp duty regime to verify stamps sold before 1 April 1995 against Stamp Vendors' Registers, and to admit for registration only those documents where they were personally satisfied — did not find favour. The Bench held that the Single Bench had correctly allowed W.P.(AT) No. 2120 of 2021, and found no merit in the State's writ appeal.

The Claim for Notional Promotion

Koteswara Rao's appeal in Writ Appeal No. 1185 of 2025 pressed the argument that, once the punishment was set aside, he was automatically entitled to notional promotion to the posts of District Registrar and Deputy Inspector General on par with K. Satyanarayana Rao, his stated immediate junior.

The Division Bench rejected this contention. It held that promotion is not a matter of right and there is no question of automatic notional promotion flowing from the mere setting aside of a penalty. The Single Bench had also dismissed the petition on the additional ground that K. Satyanarayana Rao, who would directly be affected by any notional promotion granted to Koteswara Rao, had not been made a party to the writ petition. The Division Bench found no ground to interfere with that reasoning and confirmed that W.P.(AT) No. 594 of 2022 had been correctly dismissed.

Order

Both Writ Appeal No. 1185 of 2025 and Writ Appeal No. 204 of 2026 were dismissed on 19 June 2026. The common order of the Single Bench dated 10 July 2025 was upheld in its entirety. No costs were imposed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.